PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:               5 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AR1999028577

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  
				
	Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Mr. John D. Miller		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, two awards of the Purple Heart and three awards of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.

3.  The applicant states that he is having “one hard time with the VA”.  The VA states that he does not have a stress factor from being wounded and seeing buddies being shot or blown apart.  In support of his application, he submitted a 1998 statement from a former fellow soldier who served with him in Vietnam, a citation for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation to the 87th Engineer Battalion for the period August 1965 to April 1968; a copy of United States Army Vietnam General Orders Number 164, dated 12 January 1968, awarding the Meritorious Unit Commendation to the 87th Engineer Battalion for the period 1 May 1966 to 28 February 1967; and a copy of United States Army Vietnam General Orders Number 2189, dated 21 June 1969, awarding the Meritorious Unit Commendation to the 87th Engineer Battalion for the period 1 March 1967 to 29 February 1968.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty on 6 May 1966 and completed training as a tractor operator.  He served in Vietnam from 8 June 1967 to 30 December 1968.  He was honorably discharged on 2 January 1969.  

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) does not show any awards of the Purple Heart or the Meritorious Unit Commendation as authorized awards.

6.  The applicant submitted a statement from a fellow soldier in Vietnam who claims to be an eye-witness when the applicant was wounded in January or February 1968 and evacuated to a “field hospital”.  However, there are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Purple Heart.  There also is no evidence in his records that he was wounded or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show any entry in item 40 (Wounds) or list the Purple Heart in item 41 (Awards and Decorations).

7.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 shows that he served in Vietnam from 8 June 1967 to 30 December 1968.  The orders for the Meritorious Unit Commendation submitted by the applicant cover the period from August 1965 to February 1968.  However, only United States Army Vietnam General Orders Number 2189, dated 21 June 1969, awarding the Meritorious Unit Commendation to the 87th Engineer Battalion for the period 1 March 1967 to 29 February 1968 cover the period the applicant was assigned to that battalion.

8. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This document shows the unit, to which the applicant was assigned, was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for actions during the period 1 March 1967 to 29 February 1968 by Department of the Army General Orders Number 48, dated 1969.

9.  There is no indication in the applicant’s personnel records that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no evidence the applicant was disqualified by his unit commander for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  Records show the applicant’s conduct and efficiency was rated as “excellent” throughout his service and there is no indication of indiscipline in his records.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, states that effective 1 March 1961 the Meritorious Unit Commendation was authorized for units and/or detachments of the Armed Forces of the United States for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services for at least six continuous months in support of military operations. 

12.  Army Regulation 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia), in pertinent part, states that unit awards are authorized for permanent wear by an individual who was assigned and present for duty with the unit at any time during the period cited or who was attached to and present for duty with the unit for at least 30 consecutive days of the period cited.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the statement from the former fellow soldier in support of the applicant's claim for award of the Purple Heart.  However, absent any other corroborating evidence of record, this statement alone, made over 30 years after the fact, is not sufficient as the basis for award of the Purple Heart.

2.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was awarded the Purple Heart or that he was wounded or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to award of the Purple Heart.

3.  The applicant was an assigned member of the 87th Engineer Battalion when only one award of the from 8 June 1967 to 30 December 1968 and is only entitled to the Meritorious Unit Commendation awarded for this period.  Evidence of record shows that the Meritorious Unit Commendation was awarded to the 87th Engineer Battalion for the period 1 March 1967 to 29 February 1968 which covered the entire period f the applicant’s assignment in Vietnam.  Therefore, the applicant is only entitled to one award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation.    

4.  The applicant is entitled to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 6 May 1966 through 2 January 1969 based on completion of a period of qualifying service ending with termination of a period of a period of Federal military service.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show this award.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Good Conduct Medal for the period 6 May 1966 through 2 January 1969.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

EJO____  JDM_____  JMA____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Erin J. Olmes_________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028577	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000105	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690102	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	OVERSEAS RETURNEE	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR SCHNEIDER 	
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.